Purpose-The aim of this study is to develop a framework for analysing how humanitarian organisations address different expectations regarding sustainability. Design/methodology/approach-Quantitative and qualitative content analysis is used to assess the annual reports of humanitarian organisations for their discussions on sustainability overall, and in relation to contextual expectations, subsystems and supply chains, organisational structure and strategy. Findings-Humanitarian organisations address sustainability primarily from the perspective of contextual expectations from society and beneficiaries. Some fits between supply chain design and societal expectations are attended to, but fits between programmes and contextual expectations are not discussed explicitly. Research limitations/implications-Annual reports express what organisations want to portray of their activities rather than being direct reflections of what occurs in the field, hence the use of annual reports for the study delimits its findings. However, humanitarian organisations rarely publish sustainability reports. Practical implications-Even though there is a general pursuit of the elusive aim of aid effectiveness, organisational structures need to be further aligned with societal aims as to support these. Social implications-Beneficiaries are still seen as external to the humanitarian supply chain and humanitarian programmes, though their role may change with the introduction of more cash components in aid, voucher systems, and ultimately, their empowerment through these. Originality/value-The suggested conceptual framework combines elements of contingency theory with a prior four perspectives model on sustainability expectations. The framework helps to highlight fits between the humanitarian context, operations and programmes as well as misalignments between these.

No abstract

Purpose – The purpose of the paper is to deepen the understanding of supply chain performance objectives in the humanitarian context by striving to understand the underlying goals and conceptual variables behind the measurement of performance, such as efficiency. Design/methodology/approach – The research is an in-depth case study with one humanitarian organization. The data are gathered with mixed methods over a two-year period. Interviews were conducted in August 2010 and April 2012, and a survey conducted in October 2012. Findings – Misalignments are detected among different groups in humanitarian operations and between their goals and processes. These misalignments could possibly be corrected through long-term thinking in short-term operations by considering sustainability aspects throughout humanitarian assistance, for example. In addition, efficiency was a commonly identified objective in the case organization, although the definition varied widely and extended beyond the traditional definition of productivity to include planning, accountability and quality. Practical implications – Better communication and definition of terms is necessary to align goals and the power hierarchy in humanitarian supply chains, where operations seem to be structured more according to donor requirements then beneficiary needs. Originality/value – This is an in-depth case study, applying goal-setting theory to study supply chain performance. The study further responds to the public “aid efficiency” discussion by striving to recognize how efficiency is understood and how it can be measured in a humanitarian supply chain.

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the financial and material flows in cash-based responses (CBRs) and their implications for humanitarian operations. This research proposes to view cash as a commodity used by humanitarian actors in emergency operations and therefore aims to explore how CBRs impact on humanitarian logistics and ultimately, affect beneficiaries. Design/methodology/approach The methodological approach of grounded theory was chosen for this inquiry because it allowed the researchers to generate a general explanation for the process of CBRs in emergency situations based on the views of participants interviewed. Interviews were conducted with senior managers, supply chain managements and logistics officers from international humanitarian organisations (HOs), United Nations agencies and commercial organisations involved in humanitarian operations. Examples of topics covered during the field work included, procedures and policy; knowledge and information management; systems and technology; actors and agents. Findings The impact of CBRs on humanitarian operations can though not be understated. They alter supply chain design, the very role of beneficiaries as well as HOs, and change the strategy of aid delivery from push to pull. Perhaps, the most important factor is the elimination of many logistical activities that needed to be performed by HOs. Delivering cash diminishes the needs for lengthy procurement and assessment processes, pre-positioning, transportation and distribution. This bears the potential of significant reductions in costs for delivering humanitarian aid at the same time as it is an important move from aid to trade. Practical implications The challenge for humanitarian agencies in the coming years is to overcome their fears surrounding CBRs, and to implement cash programmes where they are judged to be the most appropriate response. This will require not only a change in donor policies, but also a fundamental change in the skill set of humanitarian logisticians, who are used to identifying needs and providing commodities and thus to maintaining control over the provision of assistance. Originality/value The contribution of this research is twofold: this is the first examination of cash-based interventions in humanitarian operations through the prism of supply chain management. Second, the research is field based and grounded in empirical observations thus adding to the literature and offering insights to practice.

No abstract